Skip to content

Access keys for nzta.govt.nz

  • h Home
  • m Menu
  • 0 Show list of access keys
  • 2 Skip to content
  • 3 Skip to top

Introduction

This section provides guidance for assessing road safety promotion programmes that target a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the roading network.

The road safety promotion activity class incorporates the following work category:

Further to the assessment criteria set out under Strategic Fit, Effectiveness and Benefit and Cost Appraisal below, Approved Organisations and the Transport Agency should consider the Communities at risk register and Road safety action planning guidance below to support the assessment of road safety promotion activities.

Communities at risk register

The Transport Agency has aligned its investment assessment framework for the Road safety promotion activity class with the Safer Journeys areas of concern.  However, we know that some communities are over-represented in national statistics for other risk areas.

The ‘Communities at Risk' register, based on information in the national Crash Analysis System Database, enables the Transport Agency to

  • prioritise funding to those communities that feature highly within a national risk area; and
  • address issues that are not identified as an area of high concern in the Safer Journeys strategy, but are still a significant local risk issue, by helping local authorities identify and prioritise resources towards the specific areas of concern.

The register is updated prior to the start of each NLTP. Briefing notes issued annually to each Approved Organisation will further define localised risks.

The latest Communities at Risk Register(external link) can be found on the Transport Agency website.

Road safety action planning

The Road Safety Action Planning process is an essential element for planning activities funded through the NLTP, particularly within road safety promotion.  Effective action planning requires a collaborative approach from key partners to provide direction, commitment and urgency to address and mitigate road safety risks.

Action planning works most effectively when led and owned by regional leadership, with alignment to national safety strategies.

Activities delivering on key priority areas for the region, cluster or approved organisation, as informed by evidence, should reflect a number of the Safe System pillars and integrate investment from all parties utilising advertising, education, enforcement and infrastructure.  It is essential that investment proposals to the road safety promotion activity class reflect this broad, Safe System approach.

Strategic fit for road safety promotion programmes

Default strategic fit

By default, the strategic fit rating for activities within a road safety promotion programme is low.

 

Requirements for medium rating

A road safety promotion programme, or a component of a programme, may be given a medium strategic fit rating if each  road user behaviour change activity for reducing the crash risk involving deaths and serious injuries is:

  • a national or local programme in a Safer Journeys area of medium concern; OR
  • a local programme for a community at medium risk; OR
  • a national programme that supports delivery of a local programme for a community at medium risk.

 

Requirements for high rating

A high strategic fit rating must only be given to road safety promotion programmes, or components of programmes, if each road user behaviour change activity for reducing the crash risk involving deaths and serious injuries is:

  • a national or local programme in a Safer Journeys area of high concern; OR
  • a local programme for a community at high risk; OR
  • a national programme that support delivery of a local programme for a community at high risk.

 

Further information

Further information on Strategic Fit assessment is provided in the guidance on Developing an Assessment Profile

Effectiveness for road safety promotion programmes

Criteria for effectiveness

All six criteria set out below are to be assessed for any programme or activity proposed for NLTP inclusion or funding approval. The explanations are a guide to assessment, highlighting aspects that need to be considered. If any of these aspects is not applicable to the activity then it should not form part of the assessment.

Criteria Explanation Rating
Outcomes focused
  • tangible change in addressing the problem, issue or opportunity identified in the Strategic Fit assessment
  • consistency with levels of service in an appropriate classification system
L/M/H
Integrated
  • consistency with the current network and future transport plans
  • consistency with other current and future activities including infrastructure improvements and enforcement to maximise opportunities to leverage safety outcomes amongst the activities
  • consistency with current and future land use planning
  • accommodates different needs across modes
  • support as an agreed activity across partners
L/M/H

Correctly scoped

  • the degree of fit as part of an agreed strategy or business case
  • has followed the intervention hierarchy to consider alternatives and options including low cost alternatives and options
  • is of an appropriate scale in relation to the issue/opportunity
  • covers and/or manages the spatial impact (upstream and downstream, network impacts)
  • mitigates any adverse impacts on other results
L/M/H

Affordable

  • is affordable through the lifecycle for all parties
  • has understood and traded off the best whole of life cost approach
  • has understood the benefits and costs between transport users and other parties and sought contributions as possible
L/M/H

Timely

  • delivers enduring benefits over the timeframe identified in the justified strategy or business case
  • provides the benefits in a timely manner
L/M/H

Confidence

  • manages current and future risk for results/outcomes
  • manages current and future risk for costs
L/M/H

Overall

Assessment is based on lowest rating of all components L/M/H

 

Further information

Further information on Effectiveness assessment is provided in the section on Developing an Assessment Profile.

Benefit and cost appraisal for road safety promotion programmes

Requirements

The required benefit and cost appraisal methodologies for road safety promotion programmes are set out below.

    1. Benefit cost ratio for activities over $300,000 cost.
      All activities that individually cost $300,000 or more will require formal benefit and cost appraisal using a benefit cost ratio (BCR). Activities costing more than $300,000 must not be split to avoid determining the benefit cost ratio.
    2. Benchmarking and Cost effectiveness evaluations
      The Transport Agency expects that all programmes will be justified under a value for money assessment. This assessment should be based on the priorities identified in a road safety strategy or action plan using benchmarking and cost effectiveness methodologies, and any other means of benefit and cost appraisal that may be applicable.

A simplified procedure for benefit and cost appraisal is available for Road Safety Promotion in the Transport Agency’s Economic Evaluation Manual  – SP13, this should be used as part of the value for money assessment. Guidance on using this procedure is provided within the Transport Agency’s Economic Evaluation Manual.

 

Ratings for BCRs

If the calculated BCR is below 1.0, then the activity is considered to be economically inefficient. In this case, no rating for benefit and cost appraisal will be given.

Assuming that the BCR is 1.0 or higher, the benefit and cost appraisal for road improvements falls into one of three bands:

BCR range 1- 3

All activities with BCR greater than or equal to 1 and below 3 are prioritised in this band.

BCR range 3 - 5

All activities with BCR greater than or equal to 3 and below 5 are prioritised in this band.

BCR range > 5

All activities with BCR greater than or equal to 5 are prioritised in this band.

 

Programme value for money ratings

Road safety promotion programmes, or components of programmes, are given a rating using Low, Medium, or High based on their relative cost effectiveness and benchmarking performance comparisons.

  • Low - when cost effectiveness and benchmarking shows below-average band efficiency
  • Medium - when cost effectiveness and benchmarking shows average band efficiency
  • High - when cost effectiveness shows above-average band efficiency

 

Non-monetised benefits and additional benefits

Non-monetised benefits may be taken into account and, if the Transport Agency considers these benefits to be significant, may result in a higher rating.

Additional benefits are usually in the form of wider economic benefits that are not specifically covered by the Transport Agency’s Economic Evaluation Manual. Additional benefits may result in a higher rating or be presented as part of sensitivity analysis.

 

Use of generic or default BCR

No placeholder, generic or default BCRs are to be used.

 

Peer review

The Transport Agency reserves the right to require a peer review of benefit and cost appraisal determinations and measures, including any non-monetised/additional benefits and adverse impacts, regardless of the scope, prior to an investment decision.

 

Insufficient information (1* or Low*)

An activity can be included in the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) when no benefit and cost appraisal has been made or when no robust evidence is able to be provided to support the assessment. In such cases the rating for benefit and cost appraisal will default to 1 for individual improvements or Low for the programme or programme component. The Transport Agency represents these activities as 1* and Low*to nominate that more information is required.

An activity will not be recommended by the Transport Agency for funding approval with a 1* or Low* status.

 

Further information

Further information on Benefit and Cost Appraisal is provided in the section on Developing an Assessment Profile.

 

Top